State v. David., 409 P.3d 719

On Jan 1, 2011, Peter David stabbed and killed Santhony Albert after an altercation outside an apartment; Torokas Kikku suffered minor injuries. David claimed self-defense at trial.
The State charged David with second-degree murder and second-degree assault; a jury convicted him of the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and third-degree assault.
At trial David testified he did not speak with police who had responded earlier that night; the State moved to call Officer Randall Woo in rebuttal to contradict that testimony.
The court allowed rebuttal testimony limited to whether David spoke to police and whether he was invited into the apartment; Officer Woo testified he spoke to a Micronesian male with a ponytail and that the male was uncooperative and repeatedly refused orders to leave.
Defense objected that the officer’s testimony (depicting David’s refusal to comply) exceeded the permitted rebuttal scope and improperly introduced character/bad-act evidence without notice under HRE 404(b).
The jury heard the rebuttal testimony and the prosecutor emphasized it in closing to argue David was not afraid and was the first aggressor; David was sentenced to 20 years (vacated later by ICA for resentencing concerns).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Officer Woo’s rebuttal testimony that David was uncooperative	State: Officer Woo was proper rebuttal to impeach David’s claim he did not speak to police; testimony became relevant only after David’s surprising testimony	David: Under State v. Duncan the State was bound to present Officer Woo’s evidence in its case-in-chief; further, testimony about refusal to comply exceeded rebuttal scope and was 404(b) character evidence without notice	Admission of Officer Woo’s testimony describing repeated refusals to leave exceeded rebuttal scope and was inadmissible; admission was not harmless and requires a new trial

State v. Duncan, [citation="101 Hawai'i 269, 67 P.3d 768"] (2003) (party must present available evidence in initial case-in-chief and may not hold it back for rebuttal)
Takayama v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., [citation="82 Hawai'i 486, 923 P.2d 903"] (1996) (rebuttal evidence admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Plichta, [citation="116 Hawai'i 200, 172 P.3d 512"] (2007) (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Rogan, [citation="91 Hawai'i 405, 984 P.2d 1231"] (1999) (harmless-error standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Sawyer, [citation="88 Hawai'i 325, 966 P.2d 637"] (1998) (harmless-error framework cited)
State v. McGriff, [citation="76 Hawai'i 148, 871 P.2d 782"] (1994) (prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal only if prejudice to fair trial shown)
State v. Agrabante, [citation="73 Hawai'i 179, 830 P.2d 492"] (1992) (factors to weigh in determining reversible prosecutorial misconduct)